
H3S' 



HoUinger 

pH 8.5 

Mill Ron F3.1719 



16 

H35 
opy 1 



1 



he Historical Curriculum 
in Colleges 



By 

Charles H. Haskins 



Reprinted from the Minutes 

of the 

Association of History Teachers of the Middle 
States and Maryland for 1904 



Zbe Utnicfcerbocfcct prees 
■Mew Horl? 



Gift 



THE HISTORICAL CURRICULUM IN COLLEGES 

The nature and sequence of the historical studies to be 
pursued i'h college constitute, at first sight, a distinct and well- 
defined subject of discussion. More attentive consideration, 
however, will show that, as is usually the case, this topic is 
closely bound up with a number of others. It is not possible, 
for example, to reach satisfactory conclusions as to what we 
shall study without considering why and how we shall study, 
so that questions concerning the content of historical instruction 
inevitably lead to questions involving its method and purpose. 
Furthermore, the historical curriculum in any particular insti- 
tution is in large measure determined by the general course of 
study, the problem var^ang according as we are dealing with an 
elective curriculum, a prescribed course, or a group system, and 
in regard to . these matters the practice of American colleges 
seems hopelessly at variance. Then, too, the college program 
of studies in history depends in an increasing degree upon the 
historical curriculum of the secondary school and also condi- 
tions the historical work of the graduate school ; indeed in the 
present transitional stage of educational organization in Amer- 
ica there is a constant overlapping of these three grades of 
institutions, so that it is exceedingly difficult and sometimes im- 
possible to draw a sharp line of demarcation between the different 
grades of instruction. However closely we seek to limit our- 
selves, however much we take for granted, we shall still find 
that no thoroughgoing discussion of the historical curriculum 
is possible which does not consider a large number of related 
topics. Fortunately, however, an exhaustive or definitive treat- 
ment of the theme is not now called for. The historical curric- 
ulum is still in process of evolution, and its final form is not yet 
discernible. Indeed, strictly speaking, there is no historical cur- 
riculum, for every college is working at its own problems in its 
own way ; and where conditions vary so widely and experimen- 
tation is proving so fruitful, uniformity of practice is neither 
desirable nor attainable. 

A generation ago there was little or no systematic instruction 



in history in American colleges, and what there was could cer- 
tainly not be dignified with the name of an historical curricu- 
lum. The course of study of that time aimed to cover in some 
fashion the whole range of human knowledge and to give a 
general view of every important subject. In so comprehensive 
a plan there was obviously small room for history, and if history 
was taught at all it was universal history of a very compendious 
sort. A term or two of a book like Swinton's Outlines or Free- 
man's General Sketch, a term in the senior year devoted to 
Guizot's History of Civilization, perhaps another term on the 
Constitution of the United States, may be taken as representing 
fairly the amount of time given to history in most of our institu- 
tions of learning. Often the body of instruction was much less ; 
the late Herbert Adams used to say that when he was a student 
at Amherst the course in history, except as the subject was 
treated in connection with the classics, consisted of one lecture 
given by the president toward the close of the senior year on 
the philosophy of history. Professorships of history scarcely 
existed, indeed could hardly be justified by so meagre a body 
of instruction. 

How all this has been changed is a matter of familiar knowl- 
edge. Various influences have had their share — the breakdown 
of the traditional curriculum, the example of European schools, 
the historical spirit of the age, the growth of the civic sense, 
and so on, — until to-day every reputable college has at least 
one professor of history and a fair offering of historical courses, 
while the largest of our historical departments have as many as 
eight or nine instructors whose whole time is given to history. 
The problems of the historical curriculum are obviously some- 
what different in large and in small departments, yet certain 
fundamental questions are sure to arise in every college, and it 
is to these common matters that our attention may most profit- 
ably be directed. 

In our day and generation every undergraduate has a right 
to demand of his college the opportunity to get a systematic 
course of instruction in the history of the world at large and of 
his own country. Whether this shall be made an obligation as 
well as an opportunity by requiring a certain amount of historical 
study on his part, is a question that depends largely upon the 
extent to which the college lays down specific requirements for 



its students; but if any subjects are to be prescribed it is diffi- 
ctdt to see why history should not be one of them. The main 
point, however, is that a substantial body of historical instruction 
should be offered, and that any student who so desires should be 
left free to follow a prolonged course of historical study. All 
will not desire extended work in history, but it may be asserted 
in general that all students ought to have some history, most 
ought to have a good deal, and some ought to be encouraged to 
specialize in this department. 

Historical study in college ought to begin not later than 
the sophomore year, as the great majority of colleges now per- 
mit, and, especially in view of the small amount of historical 
training which most students have had in school, there is no 
valid reason why history may not be taken in the freshman year. 
This is now possible at several representative institutions, such 
as Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth, Columbia, Cornell, Johns Hop- 
kins, the University of Pennsylvania, Vassar, Wellesley, Smith, 
Bryn Mawr, Western Reserve, Tulane, the University of Chicago, 
Leland Stanford, and the universities of Michigan, Wisconsin, 
Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, lov/a, Missouri, Nebraska, Texas, and 
California. It is, of course, easier to arrange for freshman work 
in history under an elective or group system than under a sys- 
tem of prescribed freshman studies, where the competition of 
departments for a place on the freshman program is unusually 
keen, but it is noteworthy that the institutions which do not 
permit their students to begin history at the opening of the col- 
lege course are generally those which give small recognition to 
history as an entrance subject. 

The range and variety of the historical instruction offered 
in colleges will naturally depend in large measure upon the 
available teaching force. It may be taken for granted that 
courses should be provided in ancient history, the history of the 
Middle Ages and of modem Europe, English history, and Ameri- 
can history; and even a single professor can, as far as the num- 
ber of hours of teaching is concerned, by proper arrangement 
and alternations find time for giving all these subjects. How far 
courses in these various fields may profitably be multiplied and 
subdivided is a matter which each institution must decide for 
itself, provided always that it remains possible for the ordinary 
undergraduate to get a fairly satisfactory survey of the general 



field of history without devoting an unreasonable amount of 
time to the subject. I am aware that in recent years there has 
been a large introduction into the undergraduate curriculum of 
the necessarily special and often technical courses of the gradu- 
ate school — that one imiversity actually offers to its under- 
graduates nine separate courses on the works of Victor Hugo, 
that another opens to them twenty -nine courses in what it calls 
sociology, and that stray courses on Roman lamps or the Chinese 
alphabet, on the play instinct and the pedagogy of the Gospels, 
may reward the curious perusal of college catalogues — ; but I 
cannot see that departments of history have as yet suffered seri- 
ously from such vagaries. There is a large range of subjects of 
great historical importance and profound human interest in 
which courses may profitably be given to undergraduates, and 
it is highly desirable that students should have an opportunity 
to supplement their more general and necessarily rapid courses 
by deeper acquaintance with some significant period or set of 
institutions — by some more "intensive study," if that phrase is 
preferred. What subjects are offered matters little, provided 
they are really significant and are treated in a large way. The 
Roman Empire, the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Stuart 
period in England, the rise of Prussia, the French Revolution, 
the history of colonization, the era of reconstruction, the diplo- 
matic history of the United States, — these are examples of 
a great number of subjects which are entirely suited to the 
purposes of undergraduate instruction, if the instructor is com- 
petent and the library facilities are adequate. After the funda- 
mental general courses in the great fields of history have been 
provided, the choice of these more special subjects should be 
determined largely by the training and tastes of the instructor. 
If a man's heart is in the Renaissance, let him seek to fill his 
students with the Renaissance, and not try to pump up interest 
in fields which he finds uncongenial. 

The development of " historical-mindedness " involves the 
training of the judgment and the critical sense, as well as the 
stimulating of the imagination and the widening of the sym- 
pathies; and if, toward the close of his undergraduate course, the 
serious student can have the benefit of a seminary or practice 
course in history, so much the better. "The nature of the his- 
torical method is to understand by investigation," says Droysen, 



and the senior year is none too early to learn this by actual 
experience. To face an historical problem squarely, to sift the 
materials carefully, and to draw one's own conclusions from a 
careful examination of the available body of evidence, is not 
only sound historical method, but most valuable general train- 
ing. Of course, a well-trained student will have learned some- 
thing of the nature and uses of historical sources long before his 
senior year, but in a special course it is possible for him to go 
farther and really work some limited subject to the bottom, and 
by standing for once on the solid ground of contemporary evi- 
dence take a long step toward intellectual independence. Such 
work need not be original research, but it ought to be indepen- 
dent study. A field should be selected for which the material, 
while sufficient and varied, is not beyond the student's powers, 
either as regards its difficulty or its amount, and such topics 
chosen as afford a real insight into the period as well as into the 
processes of historical study. 

As regards the sequence of historical subjects in college, I 
believe that as a general principle the order of chronological 
development should be followed where possible, and that a gen- 
eral view of the field of history should ordinarily precede courses 
on special periods or movements. Such a view of history cannot, 
however, be advantageously given in a single course, but requires 
two or three years of consecutive study. If our students brought' 
to college any such acquaintance with the field of history as is 
possessed by the graduates of German gymnasia or French lycees, 
they might profitably begin at once with more intensive courses, 
but such, unfortunately, is far from being the case. In spite of 
the rapid advances in historical instruction in schools, it still 
remains true that the average freshman carries with him but a 
small viaticum of historical knowledge or training, and that his 
acquaintance with the world's history must for the most part 
still be gained in college. A general view of the development of 
civilized life is what he has the right, first of all, to demand, only 
this must not be so rapid as to render impossible any real under- 
standing of the times studied. 

I am also of the opinion that historical instruction in col- 
lege should be progressive, that the earlier courses should serve 
in method as well as in subject-matter as an introduction to 
the later and, within reasonable limits ^ be made prerequisites 



for them. This principle is well recognized in other depart- 
ments, and while it is true that the dependence of one field upon 
another is not so close in history as in most other subjects, it is 
also true that there is an historical way of looking at things and 
a training in the use of historical materials which can only be 
learned from historical study. This holds good independently 
of the particular period of history dealt with, but its force is 
naturally much greater if the chronological order of courses be 
followed. To ignore this is to miss a large part of the purpose 
of historical teaching, and to attempt to teach such things anew 
in every course involves a large amount of wasteful repetition. 
If our introductory courses give nothing which we desire to 
demand as a condition of more advanced study, so much the 
worse for them. 

This leads to the consideration of a topic of fundamental 
importance in the historical curriculum, namely, the first year 
of college work in history. What do we seek to accomplish in 
the first historical course in college? Is it the acquisition of a 
certain modicum of general information regarding historical 
events and personages, or a certain number of general ideas re- 
garding the course of history, or a certain amount of training in 
the use of historical material? To a certain extent all these 
aims are legitimate, though any one of them seems to me in- 
adequate. Our primary purpose should be to introduce the 
student to the college study of history in such a way as will pre- 
pare him to go farther if he so desires, but will also give him 
something of substantial value in case his formal study of his- 
tory stops at this point. An introductory course of this sort 
ought to afford a view of a large section of the world's history — 
a field large enough to give an idea of the growth of institutions 
and the nature of historical evolution, yet not so extensive as to 
render impossible an acquaintance at close range with some of 
the characteristic personalities and conditions of the times — ; it 
should also demand a freer use of material than is possible in the 
secondary school, and convey some notion of the purposes and 
processes of historical study. 

If now we turn to examine what is actually done in the in- 
troductory courses of American colleges, we find the greatest di- 
versity prevailing. Courses in universal history, ancient history, 
mediaeval history, general European history, English history, 



recent European history, and American history all appear, either 
alone or in a variety of combinations. Nevertheless it is pos- 
sible to reduce these to a few general types which we may briefly 
consider. 

The best example of a course in universal history is prob- 
ably that given to freshmen or sophomores at Columbia Univer- 
sity (History A, three times a week). The scope of this course 
is sufficiently indicated by its title, "Epochs of ancient, mediae- 
val, and modern history, with special reference to forms of gov- 
ernment and changes in social conditions," the student being 
conducted, on the basis of a carefully prepared syllabus, from the 
nations of the ancient Orient to the beginning of the twentieth 
century. The plan of study is worked out more carefully than 
that of any similar course with which I am acquainted ; but in 
spite of the great popularity which they once enjoyed in col- 
leges, courses of this type now survive in comparatively few of 
the better institutions. The giving of a general survey of the 
world's history is an object which ought always to be kept in 
mind in framing an historical program, but it seems to be one 
of the few well-established results of the experience of college 
teachers of history that this cannot be profitably accomplished 
in a single year. The skilful teacher may do much to save such 
courses from becoming an arid list of names and dates on the 
one hand or a mass of unassimilated generalizations on the 
other, but the pace is inevitably too rapid to permit of satis- 
factory results. 

If more than one year is to be spent in covering the general 
field of history, it would seem at first sight that the work of the 
first year should be devoted to ancient history. This was for 
long the practice at the University of Wisconsin, and still ob- 
tains at Johns Hopkins and the University of Indiana (where 
the group system lends itself naturally to such an arrangement), 
at Tulane, and at the University of Iowa, while ancient history 
appears as an alternative with other periods at Cornell, Wiscon- 
sin, Kansas, Smith, and Leland Stanford. While, however, a 
course in ancient history not only has chronological convenience 
in its favor, but is excellently adapted to elementary instruction 
by reason of its relative simplicity and the abundance of acces- 
sible material, it has never been popular as a beginners' course. 
Ancient history as a freshman study suffers from the fact that 



it constitutes the historical preparation which most students 
bring to college, and hence lacks the freshness and stimulating 
power of less familiar fields. Moreover, it is a singular com- 
mentary upon the teaching of the classics in this country that, 
with all the time and money spent upon them and the special 
advantages which they have enjoyed, so few scholars have been 
produced of the type of W. F. Allen and Gumey and so little has 
been done to create interest in ancient history. Teachers of 
history have generally been deficient in technical training, and 
teachers of classics have been deficient in vital historical inter- 
ests; and ancient history has fallen between the two. More 
hopeful signs have recently begun to appear, but it is still true 
that the condition of ancient history among us is distinctly dis- 
creditable to American scholarship. 

A more popular type of introductory course consists of a 
general survey of the history of mediaeval and modem Europe. 
This commonly begins with the Roman Empire or the Germanic 
invasions, but there is no uniformity of practice with regard to 
the point at which it should close. At Princeton (where the 
course occupies but one semester) and at Yale the end is set at 
1870; at Brown, 1815; at Dartmouth and Northwestern, 1789; 
at Michigan and Vassar, the eighteenth century; at Wellesley 
and Bryn Mawr, 1648. The old introductory course at Harvard, 
History i, an early example of this type, extended to the begin- 
ning of the eighteenth century. A course of this sort has many 
obvious merits. It takes the student on from the point which 
he has ordinarily reached in his preparation for college, gives 
him a broad view of European development, and furnishes a 
good basis for the subsequent study of American and later 
European history. But if it has many of the advantages, it has 
also some of the disadvantages of a course in universal history. 
It covers a vast extent of ground and leaves little time for assim- 
ilation or collateral work, and the results are often unsatisfac- 
tory. Accordingly, some important institutions devote the 
whole year to the Middle Ages, thus securing time for more 
thorough study and more careful training, and at the same 
time laying a substantial foundation for later work in the mod- 
ern period and in American history. Such is now the plan fol- 
lowed at Cornell, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and California, and 
the experiment will be tried next year at Harvard. 



A general course in English history is also a possibility for 
the first year of college work, covering as it does a long stretch 
of time and enabling the student to follow a significant line of 
historical development without the confusing complications of 
the Continent. Such a course existed for some time at the Uni- 
versity of Michigan, and is still found at Vanderbilt; while it is 
offered as an alternative with other historical subjects at Wis- 
consin, California, Leland Stanford, Kansas, Bowdoin, Smith, 
and Wellesley. The University of Minnesota has for many years 
maintained a successful beginners' course devoted to the con- 
stitutional history of England to the accession of the House of 
Hanover, accompanied by a brief survey of continental history. 
It is undoubtedly possible to introduce students to European 
history on the English as well as on the continental side, and if 
sufficient attention is paid to contemporary affairs on the Con- 
tinent many of the same results may be reached ; but something 
of the largeness of the field is lost in this way, and there is always 
the danger of getting an insular and Anglo-centric view of his- 
tory which we need especially to avoid. 

Mention should also be made of the introductory course 
given at the University of Nebraska, although any adequate 
consideration of it belongs to the discussion of methods of teach- 
ing rather than of programs.' This course occupies four hours 
a week throughout the year, and is required of all students 
entering the department without previous training. One of 
these weekly hours is given to general lectures, beginning with 
Greek history and coming down to the close of the last century, 
and another hour to a systematic exposition of the methods of 
historical investigation. For the third hour the class is divided 
into sections for the study of extracts from the sources, ancient 
and mediaeval material being used, and for the fourth hour it is 
cut up into groups of half a dozen for quiz. All this is accom- 
panied by the preparation of note-books and papers and a fixed 
amount of work in the library, the whole being expected to 
require, for the majority of the students, eight hours weekly out- 
side of the classroom. It is plain that while this is in a sense a 
course in universal history, its most characteristic features are 
the careful organization and supervision of the work, and the 

' This accotint is condensed from a description of the course which 
Professor FUng has had the kindness to send me. 



lo 

emphasis placed upon the processes of historical study rather 
than upon its generally accepted results; and the methods 
employed are equally applicable, or equally inapplicable, to any 
period of history. 

So far we have assumed that each college shall maintain 
but one introductory course in history. Recently, however, a 
marked tendency has become manifest in some of our larger 
universities to offer a number of parallel courses for beginners 
in historical study. Thus Kansas, Leland Stanford, and Smith 
give both ancient and English history; Wellesley and Bowdoin, 
English and general European; Ohio State University, general 
European and American. At Cornell the courses open to fresh- 
men comprise Oriental history, Greek and Roman, and mediaeval ; 
at Wisconsin, ancient, mediaeval, English, and the history of the 
nineteenth century; at CaHfomia, ancient, mediaeval, English, 
and early Hebrew history; at the University of Pennsylvania, 
mediaeval history, the nineteenth century, and three courses in 
American history. Besides offering a wider range of choice, such 
a system has the advantage of splitting up the large body of 
first-year students into groups of more convenient size, and per- 
mitting an easier adjustment between college and preparatory 
work for students who have had extensive preparatory training 
in history. On the other hand, it breaks down any uniformity 
of preparation for advanced courses, and destroys the unity and 
co-ordination of the historical curriculum. By admitting be- 
ginners to all courses alike, each course is kept at the elementary 
level, so that a student may study history for some years with- 
out really advancing, and if the attempt is made to avoid this 
by restricting the number of elementary courses which may be 
taken, it becomes impossible for the ordinary student to get a 
general view of history. Until our students come to college with 
a more comprehensive and thorough training in history than 
they now have, it seems unwise to give up the ideal of a progres- 
sive series of related courses. 

It is certainly significant that with the exception of the 
alternatives offered at the University of Pennsylvania and the 
Ohio State University and a brief course at the University of 
Chicago, no college, so far as I have learned, places American 
history among its introductory courses, and that in a large 
number of institutions a course in European history is made a 



prerequisite for the study of American history. In spite of wide 
differences in other respects, there would seem to be general 
agreement that some sort of a course in European history is the 
best introductory course for college students. 

It would, no doubt, be worth while to investigate more 
thoroughly the practice of each institution and bring together 
the experience of historical departments with regard to their 
introductory courses, but the general summary which has been 
given must suffice. In the presence of so much diversity it 
would certainly be rash to insist that any one type of course is 
clearly the best. Conditions vary widely in different parts of 
the country and in different sorts of institutions, and the prob- 
lem is becoming more complicated with the rapid extension of 
historical study in secondary schools, so that at the present stage 
of development dogmatic conclusions are peculiarly out of place. 
As matters stand in the colleges which I know best, my present 
inclination is toward a general course on the history of the 
Middle Ages as likely to be best adapted to the needs of the first 
year. It may be that I am attracted to this solution of the 
problem because this is almost the only type of course which 
I have not taught to freshmen, and that my confidence will pass 
away with experience; but there is much to be said for begin- 
ning with a year's work on the Middle Ages. The field is broad, 
but not too vast for a single course, and the student who comes 
to college from his preparatory study of ancient history is in- 
troduced to a new world, full of action and movement and color, 
and kept in touch with it long enough to get some knowledge of 
its characteristic life and some apprehension of its relations to 
the institutions and culture of modem times. It is significant 
that most of the introductory courses now given devote consider- 
able time to the Middle Ages, the only points of difference 
being whether the emphasis shall be English or Continental and 
whether some or all of the modem period shall also be included. 

The extent of the field to be covered in the first year's 
course in history depends in some degree upon the methods of 
teaching employed, and these in turn are in large measure con- 
ditioned by the number of students in the class. The beginning 
class in history is sure to be relatively large in any institution, 
and at Harvard and Yale it has already passed four hundred. 
At the same time college authorities have rarely reached the 



point where they are willing to spend as much upon courses of 
this sort as upon elementary instruction in language, mathemat- 
ics, and science, and the effective handling of large courses in 
history has in many places become a serious problem. I cannot 
discover that there is any very general satisfaction with existing 
methods of conducting such courses, but there seems to be a 
growing realization that these large classes have come to stay, 
and a serious effort is being made to adjust our machinery of 
instruction to them. 

We are thus brought back to the point from which we 
started, namely, that it is impossible to consider what we shall 
teach without considering how we shall teach, or to discuss the 
historical curriculum without some regard to matters of general 
educational policy. At the same time let us beware of putting 
our trust in curricula or in any pedagogical devices. A good 
teacher with a poor curriculum is vastly better than a poor 
teacher with a good curriculum, and in time the good teacher's 
curriculum is likely to improve. History is larger than the 
most comprehensive course of study, and its influence upon the 
students of our colleges ought to be much wider than our formal 
historical instruction. That one lecture of President Seelye to 
the Amherst seniors proved of more value than many courses, 
for it decided Herbert Adams to devote his life to the study of 
history, and thus indirectly affected all who came under his 
fructifying influence. Inspiration is a large element in good 
historical teaching, and an important part of our function as 
college teachers of history will be left undone unless we encour- 
age our students to read liberally, stimulate them to do some- 
thing for themselves beyond what is required, and develop in 
them some abiding interest in historical studies. Courses are 
good, but history is better. 

Prof. Marshall S. Brown, of New York University, opened 
the discussion. He said: 

It is impossible to study the catalogues of representative 
colleges of our section of the country without being impressed 
by the fact that there is a decided absence of a consensus of 
opinion and practice as to the place of history in these colleges. 

Wishing to ascertain what the present practice is, I have 
examined the catalogues of twenty-one colleges of the Middle 



13 

States and Maryland, including in the number small and medium- 
sized colleges, as well as the college departments of the great 
universities. Of these twenty-one colleges, seventeen require 
the student to take some history in order to fully qualify for 
the bachelor's degree, while in four the degree may be obtained 
without any history. 

Four of these institutions make history a prescribed course 
in the freshman year, while eleven make it possible for the stu- 
dent to begin the study of history in that year. Of this number 
several of the smaller colleges make no provision for the con- 
tinued study of the subject throughout the four years of the 
college course ; in at least one case no history is given after the 
sophomore year. Ten of the twenty-one have no courses in 
history open to freshmen ; six of these ten allow or require the 
student to begin its study in the sophomore year, while four 
make no provision for historical courses before the junior year. 

There is a similar lack of conformity as to the subject of 
the introductory course. Seven of these colleges require the 
student to begin his historical study with the Middle Ages, five 
with ancient history, three with ancient, mediaeval, and modem 
history, and two with English history. 

The personnel of the teaching staflE in history in the col- 
leges of our section, is on the whole, adequately trained and well 
qualified for its work. Hence the first problem for the college 
is not, as in the school, to secure well-trained and skilled teachers 
of history, but to establish the place of history in the curric- 
ulum, which, as I understand it, is the important and worthy 
subject of our present discussion. 

I have gained the impression, although it is impossible fully 
to verify it, that in some of our colleges courses in history occupy 
places in the curricula which are determined not by careful con- 
sideration of where they ought to go, but by the practical limita- 
tions of the time schedule and teaching force, and by such 
influences as the prescriptive right of older-established subjects 
to positions in certain terms or years. So it is but fair to say 
that the status in a given college may not represent the views 
of the teachers of history of that faculty. 

Before we can decide what courses shall be offered and 
where they shall be placed, we must determine what the pur- 
pose of history instruction in the college is; for the problem 



14 

differs materially if the object be to develop historical scholars 
and investigators, rather than to increase the culture of the 
average student. A very small proportion of college students 
become trained investigators in the historical field, and a de- 
cided minority only of the whole number pursue the more 
advanced historical courses of the college. The good of the 
greatest number should be sought in planning the work of the 
course. It seems to me too obvious to demand proof that 
the large general or prescribed courses in history (and I heartily 
agree with Professor Haskins that these constitute the problem 
of the college historical curriculum) should be handled primarily 
from the standpoint of culture, and conducted for the benefit 
of the majority, who do not purpose to follow the more advanced 
courses. One of the evils of our present system is the tendency 
of college instructors to regard the scholarship and ability in 
research of a few seniors as the end for which the department 
exists. It is a legitimate end, but, I submit, should not be the 
chief end of college historical instruction. In the general or 
introductory course, then, a twofold purpose must be kept in 
view: first and foremost the broadening and deepening of the 
culture of the average student; second, the laying of a founda- 
tion of historical information upon which to base a further and 
more specialized course of historical study, i. e., it must be 
treated both as an end in itself and as a preparation for further 
study. 

This twofold end of the general course introduces the 
question as to the position of the course in the curriculum. 
Regarded as a culture course alone, doubtless the junior year 
would be the most advantageous time, but as the disciplinary 
and preparatory nature of the course must be considered as well, 
the practice of the majority of the colleges of placing it in the 
freshman or sophomore year must be held the correct one. 

If culture is to be the main end of our introductory course, 
it follows that the subject should be taught, not by the youngest 
tutor or instructor, but by the experienced professor of broad 
culture and ripe scholarship. The inexperienced instructor, 
fresh from an extended course of study in his specialty, would 
be relatively much more valuable in advanced courses, where 
smaller numbers of specially interested students pursue investi- 
gations in limited fields. 



IS 

It is so important that the student should have the best 
possible instruction in this culture course that it may be advis- 
able, in the small college, to have any one of several fields cov- 
ered, according to the particular bent or ability of the professor. 
Practically, I would narrow the range of choice to the subjects: 
general history, with or without ancient history; mediaeval his- 
tory; and English history. I would exclude the history of the 
United States, because it has been more generally and perhaps 
better taught in the schools than the subjects named, and be- 
cause European history, covering, as it does, a wider and, on the 
whole, a richer field, contains more of culture value. Moreover, 
European history is a necessary foundation for further historical 
study. 

At least one general culture course in history should be 
prescribed for every college student, as an essential requirement 
for the bachelor's degree. We have gone too far in the Ameri- 
can college in regarding work as valuable only as it prepares for 
something specific beyond: law, medicine, advanced or graduate 
work, or, indeed, anything that will directly assist in bread- 
winning. The idea of culture for its own sake should be re- 
stored in our colleges. Our subject — history — is pre-eminently 
fitted to advance this end by interpreting through the broadest 
and most scholarly men of the historical department the race 
experience of the past. 

The discussion of Professor Haskins's paper was further con- 
tinued by Prof. J. Montgomery Gambrill, of the Baltimore 
Polytechnic Institute. 

In discussing the history curriculum of the college, it is 
necessary to consider the general aim of historical study and the 
amount of historical training prior to entrance. The purposes 
of historical study, which I need not attempt to enumerate 
now, can, I believe, be realized more fully by the college than 
by the lower schools. For example, training of the judgment 
and the critical sense is always named among the aims of his- 
torical study ; a bare beginning in this may be made in element- 
ary work; some very useful training may be given in the high 
school; but in the college results of real maturity may be se- 
cured by proper methods. The three curricula should form a 
kind of spiral. 



i6 

I am convinced of the importance of requiring at least an 
outline knowledge of the whole course of general history prior to 
taking up the intensive work of the college. If it is impractica- 
ble to require this, then the college should offer entirely different 
courses for those who have pursued such a course as recom- 
mended by the Committee of Seven, and for those who have 
barely enough historical training to enter. The student who 
attempts the study of a special period or topic without some 
knowledge of the general course of history will find it impos- 
sible to understand fully its connections and its significance 
and thus fail to realize its full benefits. Moreover, many of the 
allusions and comparisons that must be met in reading will be 
meaningless to him. I am of the further opinion that in our 
just contempt for drill, "grind," dynastic annals, and " drum and 
trumpet" history, we are in danger of allowing the reaction to 
carry us too far. Upon a basis of "mere facts" the really im- 
portant work in history must be built, and if the foundations 
are sandy, how can the superstructure be other than insecure? 

It seems to me eminently proper to specialize in the col- 
lege work, but it should be intensive as to subjects, as well as 
to periods of time. As an example, the subject of federal gov- 
ernment, studied in its historical development from ancient 
times to the present, and possibly based upon the little work by 
John Fiske, called American Political Ideas, would be fully as 
fruitful in every way as the study of some important epoch in 
English or general history. An element of special timeliness 
and contemporaneous interest might be given to such topics. 
For instance, the present war in the East might be the occasion 
for studying the whole question of the struggle between Eastern 
and Western civilization, from Marathon to the present, with 
the interesting but difficult problem of just what each combat- 
ant in the present struggle represents. 

The key to the solution of the problem, so far as there is 
a key, will be fotmd when we have determined what the second- 
ary school can and should do for its pupils before they begin 
the work of the college. The subject of a college curriculum in 
history is only a part of the larger problem of history courses 
in all the schools,- — elementary, secondary, and collegiate, — and 
its possibilities must depend in great measure upon what are 
foimd to be the possibilities of the other two. 



17 

The discussion was closed by the Secretary, who rose to ask 
several questions: 

It has been assumed in the discussion thus far that the 
teachers in the colleges are "well trained." Is this so? Do 
their students think that they are well trained? Are they 
trained to acquire knowledge or to impart it? Where classes 
are not interested in the work, is it because of "original sin"? 
Do classes ever fail to be interested when the content of the 
course is of prime historical importance? Should the course 
itself appeal to the members as having real value? In a word, 
are the methods of presentation and the content of the course 
sufficiently defined in the discussion thus far? 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




